March 3, 2010

... even as he calls me an "'ax' murderer." In the pages of The New Yorker! No, not the "the great magazine itself, where space is too valuable to expend on close analyses of radiocon conneries." On a virtual page of newyorker.com. To be fair, I was really mean to him. You can decide for yourself whether he's unwedged the ax from his noggin.

I could have pointed out that there is a meaningful difference between saying something (unintentionally) offensive about Obama in a private conversation in the context of supporting him (Reid) and saying something (unintentionally) offensive about Obama on television in the context of running against him (Biden). I could have explained that there is a much bigger difference between either of those and saying something (intentionally) offensive about Obama in the context of demonizing him as a cynical manipulator of racial division (Limbaugh). I could have noted that Limbaugh’s use of Reid’s private gaffe was more, not less, disingenuous than his use of Biden’s public one. And I could have pointed out that his use of both was a characteristically clever (and disingenuous) way of giving himself cover for his own unsubtle (and habitual) racial ridicule.

What's with that argument in the form of saying what he could have argued? If I were going to respond to that I would (intentionally, unintentionally, habitually, disingenously) say....

IN THE COMMENTS: Balfegor said:

I'm not sure how saying offensive and/or racist things unintentionally is better than saying them intentionally. If you say them intentionally, there's an element of artifice involved, and the possibility of conscious ironic distance. Doesn't unintentionality suggest someone unwittingly offering us a glimpse into his messy inner self?

DADvocate said:

The person making the (unintentional) racially offensive remarks stands as the greater racist because their racist thinking is ingrained in their psyche. Accusing Obama of being a "cynical manipulator of racial division" isn't a racist remark at all whether or not you find it offensive.

mrs whatsit said:

Let me see if I have this straight.

All this fuss is about what Hertzberg said about what Althouse said about what Hertzberg said about what Limbaugh said about what Reid said about Obama.

Oh, and also what Hertzberg said about what Althouse said about what Hertzberg said about what Biden said about Obama.

Oh cripes, and also about what Liberman said about what Althouse said about what Hertzberg said about what Limbaugh said about what Reid said about Obama, and about what Hertzberg said about what Althouse said about what Hertzberg said about what Biden said about Obama.

The real problem with Hertzberg argument-by-assertion defense is how completely boring it is. And how completely it misses the point of racialist thinking.

Hertzberg would let Reid and Biden off the hook because their offensiveness was unintentional.

But in the race-as-theory world, unintentionality is no defense. In fact, unintentional racism is the key to a long thesis. It reveals the real racism that the diseased culture tries to cover it. It's the brief moment when subtext crawls out of its hole and casts a shadow on the snow. The unintentional means everything!

People pay to read that stuff? Usually when halfway through such a statement someone interrupts you to say: "Have another drink, Hendy." Even if there is a point, it can't possibly be worth the effort to find it.

I agree with what you said about unintentional racism. Would you also describe the 2008 election as being unintentionally racist? Aftrerall, over 90% of blacks supported Obama. It appears to me the color of his skin mattered to them. starvethemachine.net

Hertzberg has brought another delicious hen of hatred to Althouse for her to disassemble as cleanly and effectively as the first hen. This one however seems more plump with a fine feeding of woulda (intentionally), coulda (unintentionally), shoulda (unintentionally intentionally), niblets from the small and narrow feeding window of the left.

He is claiming to stand on the 150 year old moral high ground against abusers of African-American citizens. Then he bores you to death and concludes that no one can prove that he is wrong to smell racism whenever a GOP white man speaks about Obama. That is the essential position of the Democrat owned media Conspiracy. You can also say that is a good reason not to run a GOP nominee that is easily identified as a white republican man (= a rascist), that is, Romney and Daniels who are now being shamelessly promoted by the NYT and their media friends.

Now I could point out that Hertzberg repeatedly asserts that the politicians he likes (Reid, Biden), say stupid things (unintentionally). I could note that when he writes about the talk radio host he despises (Limbaugh) he uses words like "clever" and "manipulator." I could then summarize Hertzberg's defense of the former (Reid, Biden) as little more than the assertion that they (unlike the latter) are too stupid to be racists. I could finally defend Limbaugh(if I cared about Limbaugh, which I don't), by pointing out that his unsubtle (true) and highly publicized (by the left) racial ridicule is directed mostly at defenders of a double standard (like Hertzberg).

I'm not sure that I see the differentiation between remarks made to the media, and a "private conversation" with a guy you granted access to because he's writing a book on the election....but that's maybe just me.

I love how the same generation of liberals who thought Al Franken naming his book "Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat Idiot" was in-bounds now appear to have no ability to dissect humor.

I agree with what you said about unintentional racism. Would you also describe the 2008 election as being unintentionally racist? Aftrerall, over 90% of blacks supported Obama. It appears to me the color of his skin mattered to them.

Almost right. 90% of blacks voting democratic was not racist. 98% of blacks voting for Obama over Hillary Clinton, that was racist.

Althouse argues that Limbaugh’s sustained sneering at Obama for supposedly saying “ax” instead of “ask” was O.K. because it was “humor,” a “joke,” a “riff.” (“I’m not saying it was the funniest comic riff in the world,” she adds, and on this we are in agreement.) In short, she thinks, it was O.K. for one simple reason (the Palinesque coup de grâce, delivered in italics): “It was satire.”

Really? What was being satirized?

This is a legitimate point. Rush uses a veil of satire to say obnoxious things. But satire is a real thing, not just funny talk.

Wikipedia:Although satire is usually meant to be funny, the purpose of satire is not primarily humour in itself so much as an attack on something of which the author strongly disapproves, using the weapon of wit.

To repeat Hertzberg, "What was being satired?"

If the satire is fake, then the obnoxiousness is real, and it's offensive and not funny. When people complain, Ann usually falls back on the Rush/satire defense. But then she brushes it aside when he says something she doesn't like.

The point is, you can't just SAY that Rush is being satirical (in that way that you can, for instance, say that he's being funny). You have to actually point out the satire and argue for it. Otherwise, you're just agreeing with one thing and disagreeing with another, or using humor as an excuse for bad behavior.

I could have said that use of the urban slang form of 'ask' is akin to 'wanting to have' the dialect that Reid spoke about.Or, I could have pointed out that Limbaugh has been using 'ax' on his program long before either Obama or Reid's comments about Obama were ever politically relevant, but that it dates back to the concept of Ebonics and Limbaugh's own personal disdain for butchers of the English language.

I could do all of that, but I promised myself to keep my defense of Limbaugh short (depending on how one defines 'short')*.

*-See....now I'm also using satire to poke fun of Hertzberg's passive-aggressive writing style, as I pointed out earlier. Most jokes don't get funnier if you have to explain them constantly, do they?

Daniel, Rush was satirizing two things: First, the left's hyper-sensitivity about race and its ability to find racism in the most innocent of situations. Second, Rush was satirizing the left's hypocrisy in bending over backwards to excuse obviously racial comments made by Democrats.

You may not agree that the left is hyper-sensitive about race or that the left is hypocritical, but that does not mean Rush does not believe those things and it does not mean he cannot try to satirize them. After all, the English most likely did not think they mistreated the Irish; that did not prevent Jonathan Swift from making his Modest Proposal. Oh, and the fact the English most likely didn't find Swift's proposal funny doesn't mean it wasn't satire (and probably the best example of satire ever written).

This deadpan humor thing is ridiculous. It's a get out of jail free card, not falsifiable at all, and can be argued with "you didn't get it". When I say, I did get it, it wasn't funny, it was obnoxious, you just say, well then you didn't get it.

@David, I don't think that's a legitimate argument. It's a generic rationale for anything Rush would ever want to say about race. If you race-bate as satire long enough, you're not satirizing anymore, you're just race-baiting.

Daniel wrote If you race-bate as satire long enough, you're not satirizing anymore, you're just race-baiting.

I actually agree with that. As I wrote on a previous Limbaugh thread, he's worn a groove in his brain now that shunts him into the race track when the race angle doesn't really exist -- case in point are his remarks on Haiti.

However, I think the habitual calling-out of Limbaugh on the left falls into that same category of behavior. It is so satisfying to dismiss Limbaugh as a racist that the left can't resist. Plus, by scapegoating Limbaugh the left can dismiss all of his fans at the same time. Thus, a whole panoply of ideas and people can be trashed at once.

I don't care about Limbaugh either as humorist or scapegoat. Since I don't listen to him I can easily avoid his humor. But it's hard to avoid his use as a scapegoat by the left, not when the politicians and major blogs do it. And that just makes the left even more tedious and unpersuasive than they are without him.

It's a called a variable. If you don't have one, there's nothing to compare. If all candidates are the same race, you can't factor how the race of the candidates affected the outcome. You know that so don't be a jerk.

If 92% of white voters had voted for McCain over Obama, there would've been outrage. And rightfully so. You know this too, so don't be a partisan hack.

That being said, as about 90% of blacks ALWAYS vote for the Democratic Candidate the "racist black voter" thesis is prima facie stupid. Blacks vote for Democrats, be that Democrat black, blue, white, or polka dot.

Daniel, responding to my comment, you wrote: I don't think that's a legitimate argument. It's a generic rationale for anything Rush would ever want to say about race. If you race-bate as satire long enough, you're not satirizing anymore, you're just race-baiting.

If you want to understand the specific, as opposed to the generic, of Rush's satire, read Althouse's original post and the original comment thread. Althouse and her commenters detail exactly what Rush said and how it alluded to remarks made by Reid and Biden and how this allusion was intended as a satire of the Left (as discussed in the my comment, above). You asked what was being satirized and you've been told in both the specific and generic.

Besides, it's not a generic justification for anything Rush might want to say about race. It's only a justification of Rush's satire of the left's attitude about race. If Rush were to seriously propose mistreating racial minorities, he should be vilified for it.

Frankly I don't understand your criticism of how often Rush engages in this particular type of satire. Is there some sort of numeric limitation on the number of times someone can make fun of something? For decades Ted Kennedy has been depicted in political cartoons wearing scuba gear. Did these repeated references of his actions at Chappaquiddick, by virtue of their mere repetition, cross over some line and become illegitimate and no longer satire? If so, what's the numeric limit -- 100, 1,000, or 1 million times? Does the numeric limit apply to the society as a whole, or is the cap applied on a per speaker basis? Or is the cap based on the number of times the audience has seen a similar reference? Who keeps count? The issues with trying to implement such a cap boggle my poor mind.

Does it make any difference whether or not the party being satirized persists in the targeted behavior? If so, I'd say Rush should stop satirizing the left for its attitudes about race and hypocrisy as soon as the left abandons those behaviors. Since the left routinely sees racism where none exists (Any criticism of the current President is seen by many on the left as racism.), and since the left almost never sees anything said or done by a Democrat as being racist, I think Rush can safely keep hitting this topic for the foreseeable future.

I'm not sure how saying offensive and/or racist things unintentionally is better than saying them intentionally. If you say them intentionally, there's an element of artifice involved, and the possibility of conscious ironic distance. Doesn't unintentionality suggest someone unwittingly offering us a glimpse into his messy inner self?

Besides, it's not a generic justification for anything Rush might want to say about race. It's only a justification of Rush's satire of the left's attitude about race.

But David, the justification of everything that Rush says about race is that he's satirizing the left's attitude about race. (That's my complaint about the original Althouse post, which is highly specific in its generality). In fact, the justification of everything that Rush ever says that's objectionable is that he's satirizing the left's objectionable attitude. He's created a circumstance in which everything he says can be described as inciting the media or the left. (Another version of this is his common reference to himself as a business man first -- he's just saying what he says to get listeners.)What does he actually think? Is there any there there, or is it all just playing games? If it's the latter, then he really is a giant suck on the collective intelligence of America. Frankly, I think there is a there there, it's not all satire, and treating it as such misses its impacts.

Frankly I don't understand your criticism of how often Rush engages in this particular type of satire. Is there some sort of numeric limitation on the number of times someone can make fun of something?

Eventually, you become what you're satirizing in others. Which is why it's been odd but not ultimately surprising to see the right become the home of a hell of a lot of race-based grievance (NOT racism) since Obama was elected.

"This deadpan humor thing is ridiculous. It's a get out of jail free card, not falsifiable at all, and can be argued with "you didn't get it". When I say, I did get it, it wasn't funny, it was obnoxious, you just say, well then you didn't get it."

There is no reasonable man standard to distinguish between deadpan humor and racist jokes.

If Limbaugh attempts deadpan humor using racial themes, and no one gets it, that doesn't mean he's a racist. It only means that his attempt at humor fails. What makes his statement an attempt at deadpan humor and not an expression of racism is his intention to be humorous.

While Rush's hypocrite baiting may generate a great deal of attention its far from the majority of his show. I've always felt this was due to the fact that A) most people don't actually listen to his show and B) most of his critics would rather attack his personality/appearance/attitude than argue against his points.

I could have pointed out that there is a meaningful difference between saying something (unintentionally) offensive about Obama in a private conversation in the context of supporting him (Reid) and saying something (unintentionally) offensive about Obama on television in the context of running against him (Biden).

No, there is no "meaningful difference" between the two. You're splitting hairs to justify your double standards. Cog dis.

But David, the justification of everything that Rush says about race is that he's satirizing the left's attitude about race. (That's my complaint about the original Althouse post, which is highly specific in its generality)....

Daniel, half of Rush's show consists of his making fun of the left's attitudes about race, feminism, the environment, etc. The other half of his show is a serious conversation about public policy issues and items in the news. The last half of his show (that, by the way, is an allusion to NPR's Car Talk), is just stuff Rush find's interesting, such as the NFL and golf. Yes, this mixture makes following the conversation sometimes -- many times -- difficult. That doesn't make Rush a race-baiter. It just makes his show sometimes confusing and may mean he could better communicate his message if he used a different approach. That might be a valid criticism.

It's not a valid criticism to say that, because Rush often satirizes the left's racial attitudes, Rush is a racist. He's making fun of those who use race to divide us! He's making fun of those who cry racist so often the word is losing its meaning! Too frequent repetition of this type of satire would not make Rush a racist; it would make him boring.

Nor does the fact Rush's audience includes some racists proof he has a racial message. Any large group will include some racists. Rush's audience is more than 20 million. There must be some racists among them. Jesse Jackson's following undoubtedly includes some racists, too. The racists in their audience does not make either man a racist. (Jackson's a race-baiter, but that's based on what he says and does and NOT on who follows him.)

The person making the (unintentional) racially offensive remarks stands as the greater racist because their racist thinking is ingrained in their psyche. Accusing Obama of being a "cynical manipulator of racial division" isn't a racist remark at all whether or not you find it offensive.

It wasn't exactly satire nor was it "deadpan" humor. Limbaugh was doing what he calls illustrating absurdity by being absurd. The tell is that everything Limbaugh said is all entirely true and accurate. Biden really DID say Obama is "clean and articulate." Reid really DID say that Obama doesn't talk with a "negro dialect unless he wanted to have one". And Obama really DID say "axe" for "ask". All Limbaugh did was point these things out and put them side-by-side. It is what it is.

…and since the left almost never sees anything said or done by a Democrat as being racist…

Well except when politics are involved. Don’t forget that Bill Clinton and Ferraro were both denounced as making racists comments (Ferraro’s was basically akin to Reid’s). I always said I laughed my butt off when they acted so shocked, shocked over the accusations.

But that was during the primaries where Obama and his cronies were going to pull out every card in the deck and invent new ones if they had to. Now that he is President, they all fell back into line like good partisan hacks.

Well except when politics are involved. Don’t forget that Bill Clinton and Ferraro were both denounced as making racists comments (Ferraro’s was basically akin to Reid’s). I always said I laughed my butt off when they acted so shocked, shocked over the accusations.

Fair enough and good point. The left doesn't always excuse behavior on the part of Democrats it would find objectionable on the part of Republicans -- just almost always!

All this fuss is about what Hertzberg said about what Althouse said about what Hertzberg said about what Limbaugh said about what Reid said about Obama.

Oh, and also what Hertzberg said about what Althouse said about what Hertzberg said about what Biden said about Obama.

Oh cripes, and also about what Liberman said about what Althouse said about what Hertzberg said about what Limbaugh said about what Reid said about Obama, and about what Hertzberg said about what Althouse said about what Hertzberg said about what Biden said about Obama.

I propose that the ability to see the right as "the home" of race-based grievance starts with an odd comfort with leftist scapegoating.

I don't think the right is THE home of race-based grievance. I think the right has become the home of a lot more race-based grievance since Obama was elected, and I think that's odd because traditionally race-based grievance has been more embraced on the left. Not that it hasn't been there on the right in the past (Jesse Helms's wringing hands come to mind), it's just more embraced now. In a different, more PC kind of way than the hand-wringing too.

Rush simply mocked Obama for sounding like a Negro. Not racist at all, because Harry Reid said Obama could speak like a Negro if he wanted to.

There is nothing unique, or racial, about Obama's ability to adapt his voice to the audience. How many politicians can sound like Walter Cronkite one day, and like a good ol' ocuntry boy the next? Hillary Clinton can sound like, well, the Secretary of State if she chooses, or like Minnie Pearl.

1.the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc. 2.a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule. 3.a literary genre comprising such compositions.

Whether you agree with the purpose, style, or method of the satire, your attempt to redefine satire to meet your viewpoint is a classic case of not letting the facts get in the way of your belief. Rush was satirizing the Left's hypocrisy on race.

We get it that you don't like Rush and hence anything he says or does, but if all you can do is continue to twist your 'logic' in pretzel like knots of justification, Billy Goat Gruff is awaiting you under the bridge. Please don't upset him by not showing up.

Rik is pretending that he's (somehow) able to interpret what was (actually) said by whom in order to gain the (deeper) truth of what was (really) meant because it is axiomatic that the Left can never be racist (intentionally or unintentionally) &, conversely, that the Right will always be racist or guilty of racial ridicule (intentionally or unintentionally).

In short, his pretext is that there's a (meaningful) difference between offensive things said about Obama depending on whether the speaker is a (wingnut) Conservative or a (concerned) Centrist/Liberal (those being the opposite ends of Rik’s spectrum).

Did Hendrik Hertzberg express implied consent in his hit piece instead then? These leftists are devious, rancid vermin that extol and expound a philosophy that is a death knell to any right thinking nation and for what? So they can feel morally superior for taking literally no action at all. How hard is it to call someone a racist? How hard is it for any leftist to support anything. Not hard at all. Let your leftist flag fly because it doesn't take brains to be one.

Your whole series of posts from the very beginning to the end of the last one really don't make a whole lot of sense. HH is entirely correct when he says that Limbaugh is using racist demagoguery and he makes the point quite forcefully. You, on the other hand, don't seem to be able to make a rational statement. The fact that you continue to try just gets you deeper into your own mud. Accept that Limbaugh is making a fortune off of racist and similarly inclined low-lifes because that is what all the evidence directly indicates. The evidence is irrefutable.

I have to wonder if most of Rush's critics have ever actually listened to the show. Is he a racist? I've never heard an indication of it, though I listen only occasionally. Does he like to tweak those he sees as racial hypocrites? Absolutely. Could that be interpreted as race-baiting? I suppose by someone looking to find fault.

Case in point, the Donovan McNabb scenario. Did Rush say McNabb was an inferior quarterback? No. Did he say blacks can't be good quarterbacks? No. He said McNabb was overrated because as a black at a position dominated by whites a lot of commentators wanted to see him do well, and therefore let their enthusiasm color their objective analysis. (no pun intended)

You could call it the soft bigotry of low expectations. A lot of people want (or at least wanted) Obama to succeed for the same reason. I think Rush's point was that wanting someone to succeed because of their race rather than their performance or qualifications is . . . well, certainly race-conscious at least, if not all the way to racist.

For those who think Rush is a racist, perform the following thought experiment: Who do you think Rush would prefer as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court: Clarence Thomas or Orrin Hatch? Who would he prefer as Treasury Secretary: Thomas Sowell or Hank Paulson? For Secretary of State: Condi Rice or Chuck Hagel? For quarterback: Donovan McNabb or Rex Grossman? Be honest.

Limbaugh's audience "consists largely of people who think, or whom Limbaugh has persuaded, that the only important way in which contemporary racism manifests itself is when liberals, white or black, unjustly accuse white conservatives of racism or pandering to racist attitudes."

Poor point, tediously written, unproven in any way by any of the foregoing. Point to a single comment in the thread that argues the only important manifestation of contemporary racisim is "when liberals, white or black, unjustly accuse white conservatives of racism or pandering to racist attitudes."

That line of argument would be against hypocrisy, perhaps, or against false claims of victimization, or against misuse of the language.

I and many Rush listeners are aware of significant race prejudice in contemporary America. And those bigots come in all colors.